- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. These are three ap plicants registered as separate cases filed under Section 482, Cr. PC. for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. In Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2925 of 1996 Bimal Barua v. State of U. P. and others the applicants have prayed for the quashing of the proceedings of case No. 77 of 1996 Farhad Shikoh Khan v. Bimal Barua pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and the registration and investigation of case crime No. C. 10/1996 under Section 392,i. P. C. registered at police station Cantt. , Varanasi against the applicants. In other two applications i. e. in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2951 of 1996 and 2952 of 1996, the same applicants have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case Nos. 13 of 1996 and 84 of 1996, Jafar Khan v. Bimal Barua and others and Nasar Jama Khan v. Bimal Barua and others, respectively pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
(2.) THE brief facts of the cases are that Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. (Herein after referred to as "telco") has launched a hire purchase scheme, according to which if a person is willing to buy a Tata Diesel vehicle from its authorised dealer's Show Room, he may do so under that scheme on Hire purchase basis. THE ap plicants are Chief Executive Manager and Asstt. Manager in a firm namely M/s Rohit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. , Varanasi, which is an authorised dealer of TELCO. As per terms and conditions of the Hire purchase, a cus tomer desiring to buy a vehicle on hire pur chase basis, would have to deposit initially an amount as required under the hire pur chase scheme with the dealer and thereafter the dealer would handover the Tata Diesel Vehicle manufactured by the TELCO. In the present cases the concerned three respondents i. e. respondent No. 3 in each case, namely Mohd. Farhad Khan, son of Zafar Ali Khan, respondent No. 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2925; Jafar Khan son of Zafar Ali Khan, respondent No. 3 in criminal Misc. Application No. 2951 of 1996; and Nasar Jama Khan son of Late Ali Jama Khan respondent No. 3 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2952 of 1996 paid a sum of Rs. 77,732/-, 87. 500/- and 87,500/- respectively towards initial pay ments. It is also significant to indicate here that in fact, four separate hire purchase Agreements were executed by four persons in which three are aforementioned respon dent No. 3 in the above noted three cases and one. Mr. Jayanti Pathak, who was busi ness associate of respondent No. 3 Mohd. Farhad Khan. Jafar Khan is his brother and Nasar Jama Khan is his cousin. THEreafter Mohd. Farhad Khan issued a cheque dated 28-4-95 amounting to Rs. 1,50,464. 00 as hire purchase amount of installment but the same was dishonoured but this amount was deposited by him in cash with the applicants. THEreafter he again submitted a cheque of Rs. one lac dated 9-8-1995 which was again bounced and then he deposited a sum of Rs. 37. 500/- in cash. THE other three persons did not prefer to buy the vehicle and they requested to adjust the amount of their initial deposit of Rs. 87,500/- towards the hire purchase instalment of Mohd. Farhad Khan to whom the vehicle was delivered Body of the vehicle was got prepared by Mohd. Farhad Khan in the shape of a bus. According to the applicants he committed default in making payment as per terms of hire purchase Agreement and, as such the Company was entitled to seize the vehicle. THEreafter before seizure of the vehicle Far-had Khan filed a civil suit having an ap prehension that the vehicle may be seized but no interim injunction was granted in his favour. According to the applicants they engaged a private security of Bodh Gaya i. e. Kumar Security Services for the purpose of taking possession of the vehicle and the Company after taking over the possession of the vehicle in quest ion from Kumar Security Service prepared an inventory list of the vehicle seized and informed about the same to the officer- in-charge of police station Bodhgaya (Bihar) and also filed written statement in the civil suit being Civil Suit No. 318 of 1996 Farhat Khan v. TELCO and others in which it was stated that the Com pany has taken over possession of the vehicle. On the other hand Farhad Khan filed an application before the Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Varanasi supported by an affidavit stating therein that the applicants along with three other persons had forcibly taken away the bus of respondent No. 3 from the his residence in his absence in the morning of 12-7- 1996 when he was not present at his house and his brother Mohd. Farooq was present there who resisted the taking over of the bus but VK, Jain and Rajesh Mishra showed pistol and targetted at his fore- head (KANPATI) and threatened that in case he shouts or cries or protests they will kill him. On this due to fear his brother could not do any thing and by showing pistol Mr. Bimal Barua and VK. Jain along with his as sociates namely Rajesh Misra, and S. ft. Sinha got seated in his car and followed the bus. He has further alleged that he spent a sum of Rs. five lacs in the construction of the body of the bus besides making payment of instalments. Respondent No. 3 by the said complaint prayed for getting investigation of the incident by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station Varanasi Cantt. and to rfgister the first information report but vain. Then he sent application to the Senior Superintendent of Police and met him also but nothing has been done by them. On this complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the officer-in-charge police station, Varanasi Cantt. to investigate the matter and register the first infor mation report. In other two cases separate applica tions were moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by Jafar Khan and Nasar Jama Khan. It has been indicated that they have paid Rs. 87,500/- each but they were not provided vehicles and the money has not been refunded to them nor any interest has been paid to them. On 16-7-1996 when a contact was made with the accused persons they refused to accept the receipt of money, started abusing and pushed them out. On these two applications moved separately also the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Officer-in-charge Police Sta tion Varanasi Cantt. to investigate the mat ter and register the first information reports.
(3.) IT has been allowed that the ap plicants apprehend that they will be ar rested by the police as the police has registered cases against them as case crime Nos. C. 10/1996 under Section 392, I. P. C. case Crime No. C. 11/1996 under Sections 419,420,504 and 506,i. P. C. and case crime No. C. 12/1996 under Sections 419,420,504 and 506,1. P. C, IT has been averred that the police is trying to make arrest of the ap plicants treating the same as police case. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants are that under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. the Magistrate can only direct investigation but he has no jurisdiction to direct the police register a case. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the matter is a civil dispute between the parties and according to hire purchase agreement the petitioners have every right to take the possession of the vehicle in ques tion and the same is no offence and the proceedings are mala fide against the ap plicants.;